An Atheist and a Pope discuss God’s Two Books

Over the past few weeks, digital Catholic social hubs have been ablaze with passionate debates sparked by Pope Francis’s remarks concerning other religions as “paths to God.” It is not my intention here to offer commentary on the pontiff’s words, as CWR contributors Larry Chapp and Christopher Altieri have already competently performed that task. Regardless of what one makes of the debacle, magisterial teaching resoundingly affirms that religious dialogue has its rightful place within Catholic life. And, fortunately, the Church has well-established guidelines for this engagement, as outlined in such sources as the Second Vatican Council’s Nostra Aetate, John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio, the curial document Dialogue and Proclamation, and Joseph Ratzinger’s Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions.

Rather, I want to showcase what authentic dialogue with non-Christians ought to look like through a privileged lens that has heretofore received scant attention. This consists of the long-term, real-world exchange between Pope Benedict XVI and atheist mathematician Piergiorgio Odifreddi, published in 2022, in Italian, under the title In ammino alla ricerca della verità: Lettere e colloqui con Benedetto XVI. Between 2013 and 2021, the pope and the atheist met face-to-face four times and exchanged a considerable number of letters that covered a wide range of issues. It turns out that many of these revolved around themes pertinent to this column, “God’s Two Books.”

A personalized “Court of the Gentiles”

Before proceeding any further, it may be helpful to pause and consider a potential point of confusion. I opened this essay by referencing Pope Francis’s controversial remarks that unfolded in the context of inter-religious dialogue. However, this dialogue involving Benedict did not transpire between people of different faiths, but between a pope and an atheist. As providence would have it, Benedict had already anticipated this point in his 2009 Christmas address to the Roman Curia. It is instructive that the pope began his commentary on a positive note, underscoring that elements of goodness can be encountered outside the Church’s visible structures:

[W]e must be concerned that human beings do not set aside the question of God, but rather see it as an essential question for their lives. We must make sure that they are open to this question and to the yearning concealed within it. Here I think naturally of the words which Jesus quoted from the Prophet Isaiah, namely that the Temple must be a house of prayer for all the nations (cf. Is 56: 7; Mk 11: 17). Jesus was thinking of the so-called “Court of the Gentiles” which he cleared of extraneous affairs so that it could be a free space for the Gentiles who wished to pray there to the one God, even if they could not take part in the mystery for whose service the inner part of the Temple was reserved. A place of prayer for all the peoples: by this he was thinking of people who know God, so to speak, only from afar—who are dissatisfied with their own gods, rites and myths and who desire the Pure and the Great, even if God remains for them the ‘unknown God” (cf. Acts 17: 23). They had to pray to the unknown God, yet in this way they were somehow in touch with the true God, albeit amid all kinds of obscurity.

As Ratzinger often observed in his ministry, Christians throughout history have consistently held that non-believers can have partial access to the one true God through the grace of Christ operative in their own traditions (Aquinas described this presence under the banner of the natural virtue of religion). At the same time, however, he underscored the importance of evangelization, stressing that not all faiths are equal and that not every element within other religions stems from grace (a dynamic documented lucidly in the Ratzinger-led CDF’s declaration Dominus Iesus).

Bearing in mind these principles, Benedict noted something further in his 2009 address. Like St. Paul at the Areopagus, he recognized the importance of engaging in dialogue with those who have no faith at all. In the absence of an official organ of the Vatican devoted to this enterprise, the pontiff proceeded to offer a suggestion:

I think that today too the Church should open a sort of “Court of the Gentiles” in which people might in some way latch on to God, without knowing him and before gaining access to his mystery, at whose service the inner life of the Church stands. Today, in addition to interreligious dialogue, there should be a dialogue with those to whom religion is something foreign, to whom God is unknown and who nevertheless do not want to be left merely Godless, but rather to draw near to him, albeit as the Unknown.”

Over the years to come, the vision outlined here would become the impetus for the establishment of a Vatican department dedicated to this dialogue, and Odifreddi would describe his ongoing exchange with the emeritus pontiff as “a sort of small private Courtyard of the Gentiles.” This was not Benedict’s first sustained dialogue with a prominent secular figure, having penned The Dialectics of Secularization: On Reason and Religion alongside Jürgen Habermas and Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam with Marcello Pera. Nevertheless, the Odifreddi exchange stands out for being his last such venture, offering a window into the pontiff’s theological vision in the final phase of his life.

Benedict’s comportment as a model for conducting genuine dialogue

It is Odifreddi who did most of the talking in this “personal courtyard.” Already in retirement due to declining health, Benedict had limited energy for writing lengthy letters. Even so, Benedict’s comments are a master class in how meaningful dialogue with non-believers ought to unfold. Despite his ailments and a continuous stream of visitors eager to see him, the emeritus pontiff showed his interlocutor that he truly cared. This is evident in the fact that he took the time to read Odifreddi’s unsolicited missives, which were often lengthy and meandering. At times, many months would pass before Benedict replied to a lengthy letter from the mathematician.

At one point, the pontiff apologized for taking so long to write back: “I did not want to write without first having read your text,” humbly submitting the excuse, “The fact that texts and books arrive almost daily, needing to be read with a certain urgency, has continually delayed this reading” (December 19, 2014). Benedict sometimes expressed regret that his health issues had limited the time he could devote to their discussions. On one occasion, he noted: “This delay is caused by the fact that I always hoped to read one of your books to deepen our dialogue a little further. But old age and the decline of my strength continue, even as daily duties remain unchanged” (December 22, 2015).

Even when he did write back, Benedict’s messages to Odifreddi were often quite short. Yet, even then, they were always heartfelt and included something of substance. In one correspondence, he reaffirmed his previous remarks on how non-Christians can connect with the true God in various ways, conveying to Odifreddi that the two of them, notwithstanding their differences, “seek the path of truth in different ways.” Alluding to another recurring theme in his oeuvre, Benedict then added that the truth “is never simply found, as truth always remains greater than us”—in other words, not so much something we possess as something that we must allow to possess us (December 22, 2015).

Not only did Benedict demonstrate charity by patiently hearing his compainion out, but also in that he respected his interlocutor enough to respond with penetrating, even critical, commentary. In his most lengthy letter in this exchange, Benedict began by thanking Odifreddi “for having carefully engaged with my book and, thereby, with my faith,” describing this as “in large part what I intended in my speech to the Roman Curia for the Christmas of 2009.” The pope also expressed gratitude to this atheist counterpart “for the honest manner in which you treated my text, sincerely seeking to do it justice.”

Yet Benedict did not let this cordiality prevent him from voicing his critical reactions when he considered it necessary. Driven by the belief that everyone has a right to the message of the gospel, the pope proceeded to offer criticism: “My overall judgment of your book is, however, rather mixed. I read some parts with enjoyment and benefit. In other parts, on the other hand, I was surprised by a certain aggressiveness and recklessness in the arguments.” With due respect for his esteemed interlocutor, Benedict continued: “Most Illustrious Professor, my critique of your book is partly harsh. But frankness is part of dialogue, for only in this way can knowledge grow. You have been very frank, and so you will accept that I am as well” (August 30, 2013, VI).

Specifically, the pontiff called out Odifreddi for exhibiting insufficient epistemic humility. Although the mathematician had been the one to initiate this dialogue with the pope, the demeanor of his interlocutor’s writing made it difficult for Benedict to see how it originated from a genuine openness to learn and be challenged:

This is the decisive point in my dialogue with you, a point I will return to at the end: I would expect that someone who seriously questions would still recognize that “perhaps” of which, following Martin Buber, I spoke at the beginning of my book. Both interlocutors must continue to search. However, it seems to me that you have instead dogmatically interrupted the search and no longer seek, but rather only claim to instruct me.

As we witness in this text, Benedict was never one to refrain from speaking his mind. And, yet, in contrast with what unfortunately often happens today, he always made a concerted effort to find common ground with his conversation partners—whether they were other Catholics, members of non-Christian religions, or atheists. Thus, even as he had some pointed criticisms, the pontiff shared:

In any case, I highly value the fact that you, through your engagement with my Introduction to Christianity, have sought such an open dialogue with the faith of the Catholic Church and that, despite all the contrasts, convergences are not entirely lacking in what matters most (August 30, 2013, VI).

Indeed, in a letter from the subsequent year, we can see that the pontiff’s earlier effort to hold Odifreddi accountable for his rash comments had borne some fruit, as this time the pope’s response was much more positive: “I am pleased that you remain unsettled by the question of God and Jesus Christ. I dare say that this unease is precisely the posture that the Church Fathers called quaerere Deum (seeking God) and which they considered the essential posture of man before the divine mystery” (December 19, 2014).

Illustrating Benedict’s approach: the question of salvation for non-Catholics

As I noted above, Benedict and his atheist interlocutor traded barbs on a variety of issues. Some of these were related to the book of nature, yet for the sake of space I’ll leave their debate concerning creation and evolution for another time. I will concentrate here on a matter related to the book of Sacred Scripture.

Odifreddi took issue with many things in the Bible, but perhaps his greatest grievance centered on what he perceived to be its inhumane stance regarding the salvation of non-believers. It is not hard to find verses in Scripture that lend themselves to the conclusion that Hell is much more densely populated than Heaven, like Christ’s statements to the effect that “many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt 22:14) and that “the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many” (Mt 7:13). Rehearsing arguments from renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel, Odifreddi contended that the existence of a just and benevolent deity is irreconcilable with Catholicism’s (purported) teaching that God created the majority of humanity only to send them to Hell for all eternity. If the Lord is truly all-powerful and all-good, so the argument goes, then he would find a way to save souls even if they never arrived at belief in Jesus.

In response, it is noteworthy that the pontiff does not entirely reject this critique. Rather, he clarifies the view in question stems not from Christian dogma itself but from one idiosyncratic and problematic interpretation of the biblical testimony. Specifically, Benedict notes that the phrase “send them to Hell” reveals the Lutheran background of Gödel’s claim. Luther posited the doctrine of servum arbitrium (“bondage of the will”), according to which man is only God’s mule, predestined by God to salvation or damnation with no free will in the matter. Erasmus of Rotterdam, meanwhile, countered with traditional Catholic teaching, summarized by Benedict as follows: “In this regard, precisely on the basis of Catholic dogma, it is not possible to say that God created the majority of mankind only to send them to Hell. According to Catholic doctrine, it is man with his free will who decides his eternal destiny.”

What is the official position of the Catholic Church regarding this issue? Benedict recalls the axiom Extra ecclesiam salus nulla est (“Outside the Church, there is no salvation”), while also acknowledging that becoming Catholic “is impossible for a large portion of humanity.” Describing the great missionary and pastoral fervor of the 19^th and early 20^th century as best “explained from this perspective,” Benedict observes something else: In tandem with growing awareness of the world’s vastness and the consequent impossibility of getting everyone to become Catholic, theological developments emerged that “tried to show under what conditions non-Catholics could, in fact, behave like Catholics and still go to Heaven…to show what the essence of Catholicism consists of, attainable by men of goodwill even without actually knowing Catholic doctrine” (September 18, 2018).

In this particular letter, Benedict does not elaborate further on how to square the fact that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4) with the truth that “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). Nor does he proffer his personal opinion regarding the quantity of souls that he expects to meet in Heaven or Hell. These are topics that he broached elsewhere (notably, in the encyclical Spe Salvi). The salient point for present purposes is how Benedict’s handling of this topic exemplifies his broader strategy when it comes to engaging non-believers about challenging subjects.

This pontiff would go out of his way to find common ground and appreciating others’ concerns, all while demonstrating an unwavering commitment to traditional Catholic doctrine and being unafraid to correct misconceptions when necessary.

Conclusion

As we have observed in this brief survey of some of his exchanges with a renowned atheist, Benedict’s approach to addressing difficult topics is noteworthy in both its erudition and its poise. The pontiff certainly matches his intellectual counterpart in scholarly rigor, but he also excels him insofar as he pursues the truth within a broader horizon and a greater generosity of spirit. In this way, Benedict’s manner of engaging others distinguishes itself from what we typically observe among non-believers and believers alike.

So often in contemporary society, dialogue is exploited for the sake of winning arguments or scoring points. By contrast, this pontiff considered fraternal dialogue essential not only for the sake of propagating the gospel, but also because it contributes to “the perpetual self-purification of Christianity.” On this note, it seems only fitting to let Benedict have the final word:

An important function of theology is to keep religion tied to reason and reason to religion. Both functions are of essential importance to humanity. In my dialogue with Habermas, I showed that there are pathologies of religion and–no less dangerous–pathologies of reason. Both need one another, and keeping them continuously connected is an important task of theology (August 30, 2013, III).